﻿560 BULLETIN 103, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



FOSSILS, EXCEPT MOLLUSCA, FROM THE GATUN FORMATION— Continued. 



MOLLUSCA FROM THE GATUN FORMATION, ACCORDING TO BEOWN AND PILSBRY.' 



The collections, mostly Mollusca, considered in the first paper by 

 these authors, ''with the exception of a tooth of a shark and a few 

 specimens of Oliva from Monkey Hill, aU come from the excavations 

 for the locks at Gatun. The Oliva taken at Monkey Hill is the same 

 species found plentifully at the Gatun excavation. The specimens 

 were collected from dumps and fills along the railway as well as from 

 dumps in the vicinity of Gatun." In their second paper, collections 

 from other localities near Gatun and from two horizons at Tower N, 

 Las Cascadas, are included. The following list contains all the 

 mollusca referred to the Gatun formation by Pilsbry and Brown. 

 The names of those preceded by an asterisk were not in the collections 

 submitted to those authors, and I have added the note "not at Gatun" 

 after the names of those which were not collected at Gatun. The 

 results of our field work and the subsequent paleontologic studies 

 cause us to dissent from the stratigrapliic interpretations of Messrs. 

 Brown and Pilsbry, for they combine the Culebra formation, the 

 Emperador limestone, and the Gatun formation into one formation. 

 As the species described by Toula in his Eine jungteriare Fauna von 

 Gatun am Panama-Kanal ^ are included in the papers by Brown and 

 Pilsbry, more detailed reference to his article is not necessary here. 



> Brown, Amos P., and Pilsbry, Henry A., Fauna of the Gatun formation. Isthmus of Panama: Acad. 

 Nat. Sci. Phila. Prae. for 1911, pp. 336-373, pis. 22-29, April, 1911; Faima of the Gatun formation— II, 

 idem, for 1912, pp. 500-519, pis. 22-26. December, 1912. 



» K. K. Geol. Reichsanstalt Jahrb., vol. 58, pp. 673-760, pis. 25-28, Vienna, 1909. Toula in a second 

 paper. Die jungtertiare Fauna von Gatiui am Panama-kanal, K. K. Geolox. Reichsanstalt Jahrb., vol. 

 61, pp. 487-530, pis. 30, 31, Vienna, 1911, published a supplement to his first paper issued in 1910, and the 

 species described as new in this are not included in the papers by Brown and Pilsbry. This one of 

 Tenia's papers escaped my attention until the present volume was in proof, and as it was then too late 

 to consider the synonymy of the species described in it, remarks on it are confined to this note. 



